MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4291253996

New tainted-blood class actions in Québec and Alberta.

2003· article· en· W4291253996 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Law and Evidence
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlaintiffClass actionCommissionSettlement (finance)Political scienceLawCertificationPublic administrationBusinessState (computer science)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In two cases in Québec and Alberta, people infected with HIV and HCV through infected blood and blood products have successfully defended motions to strike out all or parts of their legal actions against federal and provincial governments and the Canadian Red Cross Society (CRCS). On 16 January 2003, the Québec Superior Court ruled that the plaintiffs in a class action could rely on the Krever Commission Report in their application for certification of a class proceeding. On 20 February 2003, the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed an application brought by the Canadian and Alberta governments to strike out the legal action brought against them. These cases illustrate that the settlement schemes proposed by the federal and provincial governments and the CRCS, and approved by the courts, have not put an end to the civil and constitutional claims brought by people seeking compensation for infection through tainted blood.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.446

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0180.006
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0060.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.236 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicCriminal Law and Evidence→French-language works237,207→